D&D 5E Calibration of single character skill checks

[Ovinomancer]

Okay, you are writing a module. Where do you put the DCs?

Or better yet, please read the example and give one fo those recommendations to the DM to calibrate it - do they calibrate that their superstar can often get the DC but still fail regularly, or that someone focusing so much shoudl pass almost all the time?

Please contribute positively to the thread.

I find this to be the interesting question -- where do you put the DC if you're writing a module? If you're following the 5e advice on DCs, you shouldn't be putting them in the adventure at all, but that's not what's expected, so... what do you do?

I say you shouldn't be putting them in at all because DCs are supposed to be decided by the GM based on what's being attempted and the current situation. I mean, if you have to climb a cliff, what's the DC? Depends. If the GM describes it a craggy, with handholds, that sounds fairly easy -- so is DC 10 right for this cliff? Maybe. If the PC says, "pshaw, that's not a challenge, I'm going to run up the cliff with my hands tied behand my back while blindfolded!" Maybe that needs a different DC. Yes, that example is hyperbole, but it's an extreme end and we can work back towards the middle and find situations where maybe the DC should change. Let's say character A is perfectly fine, and attempts the cliff in a straightforward manner, the DC should remain a 10. But let's say character B is missing an arm (recent encounter with a vorpol sword, maybe). Should the DC change, or is this the realm of disadvantage? Both answers are fine. The DC doesn't belong to the cliff, it belong to the action. A given situation in an adventure may be engaged from many different ways during play, and a fixed DC belonging to the task is not suitable for all of them.

But... when players buy an adventure, setting DCs is probably something they expect! I mean, it's been that way for multiple editions now (including Pathfinder). So, if I put in my adventure "the GM should assign DCs for their tables as warranted" and then just provide descriptions, then I'm probably going to be howled at by any customers. So, despite what the game actually suggests for DC, I'm going to assign fixed DCs to tasks, because this is what's expected.

And that leads here, to this discussion, where there's confusion as to how to calibrate these DCs. It appears as if this is a failure of the rules, in a way, yes? Because such things should be there. But, they aren't, because the rules don't really contemplate fixed DCs assigned to tasks, like climbing this cliff. But, adventures have a different set of expectations that don't align, and, besides, we're all used to setting fixed DCs for things. But it does mean that the rules are incoherent when we try to figure out how fixed DCs are to be calibrated. So, then, the answer is... don't know, don't care. I ignore the DCs in the adventures when I run them, so calibrate any way you want.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Suppose that contrary to JC's advice, we don't have stealth rolls ride.

Which still doesn't answer the question: where do you, @clearstream (or anyone else listening in), see this concept of "stealth rolls ride" explicitly stated in the books?

There are a couple of consequences worth considering -

1. It would be entailed that the hiding creature makes a separate stealth roll per possible observer (because we're not allowing the roll to ride)
2. Per RAW in combat hiding is an action (when you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to hide) and we don't have actions outside of our turn
3. Therefore if a new possible observer arrives outside our turn, we are unable to make a stealth check against their perception

Generally speaking, if we decide to grasp the RAW as not allowing one stealth check to cover multiple or new possible observers (i.e. to ride) then we create a thorny problem to resolve. Of course, we can always ignore the RAW, but then it is not clear to me why we want to ignore the RAW and a chief game designer's advice about the RAW, in order to make a lot more dice rolls for stealth?

I think I see where you are going. The PC trying to Hide in combat makes one roll for Dex(Stealth) IF the DM calls for it, then the NPCs either each make a WIS(Perception) roll if they are searching OR we use the NPCs' Passive WIS(Perception) scores to see if the PC is hidden. If the PC succeeds, they stay hidden until they decide to attack, make noise, move, or otherwise show themselves. If you define "stealth rolls ride" as the PC deciding to stay hidden their next turn in combat... I guess it's a thing? A very niche, specific thing at that. But not really applicable to using Dex(Stealth) to sneak around.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Which still doesn't answer the question: where do you, @clearstream (or anyone else listening in), see this concept of "stealth rolls ride" explicitly stated in the books?


I think I see where you are going. The PC trying to Hide in combat makes one roll for Dex(Stealth) IF the DM calls for it, then the NPCs either each make a WIS(Perception) roll if they are searching OR we use the NPCs' Passive WIS(Perception) scores to see if the PC is hidden. If the PC succeeds, they stay hidden until they decide to attack, make noise, move, or otherwise show themselves. If you define "stealth rolls ride" as the PC deciding to stay hidden their next turn in combat... I guess it's a thing? A very niche, specific thing at that. But not really applicable to using Dex(Stealth) to sneak around.

On this topic, I think the problem is asking for the roll at the moment the action is declared. I don't do this. I only ask at the moment that discovery is possible and meaningful. This limits rolls to only occurring when there's something to resolve and not just sitting there waiting for something to come along.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

On this topic, I think the problem is asking for the roll at the moment the action is declared. I don't do this. I only ask at the moment that discovery is possible and meaningful. This limits rolls to only occurring when there's something to resolve and not just sitting there waiting for something to come along.

I see what you mean and would 100% agree if this were an exploration scene. But, in this instance, the context is in combat - so surely you ask for a roll when the player indicates their PC is trying to take the Hide action in combat, right? Like the PHB indicates in the Actions in Combat section?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I see what you mean and would 100% agree if this were an exploration scene. But, in this instance, the context is in combat - so surely you ask for a roll when the player indicates their PC is trying to take the Hide action in combat, right? Like the PHB indicates in the Actions in Combat section?

Oh, yeah, I missed some context in my skim.

 

[clearstream]

Which still doesn't answer the question: where do you, @clearstream (or anyone else listening in), see this concept of "stealth rolls ride" explicitly stated in the books?

To clarify, I am not saying that the words 'stealth rides' appear in RAW. I am using them to describe what is mandated by RAW.

I think I see where you are going. The PC trying to Hide in combat makes one roll for Dex(Stealth) IF the DM calls for it, then the NPCs either each make a WIS(Perception) roll if they are searching OR we use the NPCs' Passive WIS(Perception) scores to see if the PC is hidden. If the PC succeeds, they stay hidden until they decide to attack, make noise, move, or otherwise show themselves. If you define "stealth rolls ride" as the PC deciding to stay hidden their next turn in combat... I guess it's a thing? A very niche, specific thing at that. But not really applicable to using Dex(Stealth) to sneak around.

Let's detail a possible combat situation further -

1. Round 1, in their turn a wood elf takes the Hide action, rolling as explicitly stated in RAW
2. Round 2, they stay hidden (other stuff happens) while moving through cover to a new location (sneaking around). Per RAW they don't need to take a new Hide action to do this
3. Rounds 3-4, they stay hidden, continuing to sneak
4. Round 5, an observer has an opportunity to (passively) spot them - their round 1 roll is the roll compared with that observer's perception

To see how that is applicable outside of combat - say when sneaking in an exploration scene - look at the RAW on PHB177 that reads -

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

Let's separate out our concerns here: I'm not wedded to the words "stealth rides". However, the RAW mandates that your one stealth check continues to be used on an ongoing basis until you are discovered or you stop hiding. A view that is supported by what JC says is the intention of the designers. That one check could ride for hours, in principle, and it isn't automatically broken by moving or "sneaking".

So what do you think?

 

[clearstream]

On this topic, I think the problem is asking for the roll at the moment the action is declared. I don't do this. I only ask at the moment that discovery is possible and meaningful. This limits rolls to only occurring when there's something to resolve and not just sitting there waiting for something to come along.

I like this approach, too. There are metagame pros and cons for it. A large pro is that I find it more exciting for the player if we do not know the quality of their check until it counts! For us that creates the tension of "sneaking" well. A small con is that a hidden possible observer could be given away by calling for a roll. A DM can make that roll in secret, for the player, but I have observed that feeling bad where the stealth roll was poor and the character seen, and the player felt a bit robbed (even though all they were really robbed of is throwing that d20.)

That noted, here I'm speaking specifically to the RAW on PHB177 and the (to me natural) reading of it that JC advises is the intent of the designers. The RAW mandates that one check rides until stealth is broken. Both in combat (where the mechanics of combat double-down on it) and out of combat such as in exploration scenes. That can be squared with the above by deferring that one check, and then keeping the result from then on (assuming stealth wasn't broken at that point.)

 

[iserith]

To clarify, I am not saying that 'stealth rides' appears in RAW. I am saying that it describes what is mandated by the mechanics.


Let's detail a possible combat situation further -

1. Round 1, in their turn a wood elf takes the Hide action, rolling as explicitly stated in RAW
2. Round 2, they stay hidden (other stuff happens) while moving through cover to a new location (sneaking around). Per RAW they don't need to take a new Hide action to do this
3. Rounds 3-4, they stay hidden, continuing to sneak
4. Round 5, an observer has an opportunity to (passively) spot them - their round 1 roll is the roll compared with that observer's perception

To see how that is applicable outside of combat - say when sneaking in an exploration scene - look at the RAW on PHB177 that reads -


Let's separate out our concerns here: I'm not wedded to "stealth rides". However, the RAW mandates that your one stealth check continues to be used on an ongoing basis until you are discovered or you stop hiding. A view that is supported by what JC says is the intention of the designers. That one check could ride for hours, in principle, and it isn't automatically broken by moving or "sneaking".

So what do you think?

You also have to take into account the rules for calling for an ability check in the first place which requires there to be an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If one of those two things is not present, then there's no ability check. No check, no "ride." In the example of combat, the rules on PHB 177 indeed do apply because creatures in combat are assumed to be alert for danger. But in the aforementioned example of sneaking past some guards (an exploration challenge), the check is not called for until there's a meaningful consequence for failure. You don't roll your Stealth check while you're having your breakfast and ride it all day, right?

 

[clearstream]

You also have to take into account the rules for calling for an ability check in the first place which requires there to be an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

I find in play that these conditions are very often in place, when characters are thinking of sneaking.

If one of those two things is not present, then there's no ability check. No check, no "ride."

Perforce I can speak only of when there is a check. When there is a check, to me - based on the RAW - it seems right to say that it rides; and that view is supported by one of the chief game designers. I agree with you that if a check is not justified then there shouldn't be a check, and if there isn't a check it cannot ride.

In the example of combat, the rules on PHB 177 indeed do apply because creatures in combat are assumed to be alert for danger. But in the aforementioned example of sneaking past some guards (an exploration challenge), the check is not called for until there's a meaningful consequence for failure. You don't roll your Stealth check while you're having your breakfast and ride it all day, right?

To me, the meaningful consequence is that the sneaking character could fail to remain hidden from those - and further - possible observers.

The breakfast example doesn't seem relevant. Were we discussing climbing, then I would perforce only be speaking about Strength (Athletics) checks in the context of there indeed being something to climb. Likewise here, aren't we premising that "in cases where a stealth check is justified, then..." the one check will be ongoing until the sneaker is discovered or stops hiding?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

To clarify, I am not saying that the words 'stealth rides' appear in RAW. I am using them to describe what is mandated by RAW.

Understood. You feel it is implicit.

Let's detail a possible combat situation further -

1. Round 1, in their turn a wood elf takes the Hide action, rolling as explicitly stated in RAW
2. Round 2, they stay hidden (other stuff happens) while moving through cover to a new location (sneaking around). Per RAW they don't need to take a new Hide action to do this
3. Rounds 3-4, they stay hidden, continuing to sneak
4. Round 5, an observer has an opportunity to (passively) spot them - their round 1 roll is the roll compared with that observer's perception

I mean, sure. Sneaking around a white room with adequate cover, this works to explain how a Dex(Stealth) roll "rides". I wonder if any player ever has decided to stay hidden in combat for 4+ rounds without taking any other action to "break" the Hide AND/OR without any enemy trying to sniff them out AND/OR without suffering the wrath of the other players at the table for not contributing to the combat in a meaningful way.

To see how that is applicable outside of combat - say when sneaking in an exploration scene - look at the RAW on PHB177that reads -

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

Let's separate out our concerns here: I'm not wedded to the words "stealth rides". However, the RAW mandates that your one stealth check continues to be used on an ongoing basis until you are discovered or you stop hiding. A view that is supported by what JC says is the intention of the designers. That one check could ride for hours, in principle, and it isn't automatically broken by moving or "sneaking".

So what do you think?

Hmm... I actually think you are right in your interpretation.

Of course, "in principle" does not mean "in practice", which is where I think I've been getting hung up. If a player declares their PC will continue to Hide after assessing the environment, the DM needs to adjudicate accordingly - enemies could start actively searching, the terrain could change from one area to the next increasing the chance of making noise, cover could be compromised, etc. "Stealth rides", IMO, really means that the player doesn't have to roll again to maintain their hidden state as long as no other conditions in the environment have changed that threaten that state.

I also think that JC's "stealth rides" is a potentially misleading way to shorthand it - possibly leading players to think of Stealth as some sort of always-on buff leading to disappointment when a new roll is required for reasons.

Now I'm trying to figure out a way to bring this back around to the spirit of the thread... which is not really about opposed checks... so maybe we've wandered off the track a bit. But thanks for the discussion - it was... revealing (sorry, that's the best I could do with a Hide reference...)